Activated charcoal not so active anymore

CoffeeInThatNebula

CoffeeInThatNebula

Forum Probie
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Points
0
We were going through general pharmacology in my EMT-B class today and my instructor informed us that the department is getting rid of activated charcoal. Is this something going on nationwide? I mean, I understand it's gross, but does anyone know why this is happening for any reason other than that? I would've thought they'd at least find a replacement for it, but apparently they haven't.

Once it's gone, what will be procedure for poisoned and OD patients? Just get 'em to the hospital as fast as possible?
 
I don't know of any agency around here who has had charcoal for years. I've only seen it used on a handful of patients in the ED, as well.


Reason it's going bye bye from EMS is, just like ipecac, most people don't know when or when not to use it, and when it'd be beneficial.


The procedure is do an OG/NG tube, suction out what you can, and get them to the hospital for possible dialysis, charcoal administration there, or any other number of things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We have charcoal on our trucks. Only used it a few times though. Mix it with milk and they down it like a shake lol.
 
Linuss said:
I don't know of any agency around here who has had charcoal for years. I've only seen it used on a handful of patients in the ED, as well.


Reason it's going bye bye from EMS is, just like ipecac, most people don't know when or when not to use it, and when it'd be beneficial.


The procedure is do an OG/NG tube, suction out what you can, and get them to the hospital for possible dialysis, charcoal administration there, or any other number of things.
Click to expand...

Ah, that makes sense. Our region doesn't have PASGs for similar reasons. No one used them much and when they did, no one had a clue how to use them since they didn't do much training on them. They're working on getting those back though, apparently they work very well for those pesky pelvic injuries.
 
We got charcoal, I don't know where you are getting that it's gross, ever taste it? It's not that bad.
 
We've carried charcoal going back quite a ways now, and like some have said, it's not used that often. For us, statewide, it requires a medical consultation.

Removing something because "It's not used often and people forget" is a pretty asinine reason. Hell, on that line of thought lets remove NG/OG insertions and intubation for any medics doing less than 15 a year. I'm certain that people will spend the extra time keeping those skills fresh w/ con ed and practice, as opposed to remembering/relearning situations when (and when not) to administer a cup of mud.


Citing several studies done in late 70's & 80's, many of them suggest the timeframe to achieve the BEST results for parenteral toxicological emergencies using activated charcoal, is to give the drug (with or without lavage is debatable) within 30min to 2hrs of ingestion of the toxins. One study even suggested a positive effect within 4 hrs of ingestion.

Sure, many of our PO toxicological emergencies don't present themselves within that timeframe. However for those that do, or are on the cusp, does it not serve the pt to administer a treatment following a thorough assessment and a consultation w/ poison and/or med control?


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2014891/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10417490

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7109006
(this last link disputes the efficacy of charcoal following prolonged ingestion periods)
 
I've used it...4-5 times? In 3 of those I was told the charcoal had a direct affect on the patient. They were citalopram, Klonipin, and Tylenol. In the Tylenol case the pts APAP levels never reached the predicted level (under 100lbs, took ~19 grams). In the Klonipin case she didn't need to be intubated, and in the citalopram case the patient's seizures were less severe than expected.

In all of those cases the charcoal was administered very shortly after patient contact, and all of the cases had been witnessed ODs that were called in immediately.


I also learned that giving the patient Zofran along with the charcoal will result in the ER MDs thanking you for being proactive and thinking of the patient. Who knew.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CHarcoal for APAP OD? I've always been taught not to give it so the ED can give Mucamyst IV...
 
vquintessence said:
We've carried charcoal going back quite a ways now, and like some have said, it's not used that often. For us, statewide, it requires a medical consultation.

Removing something because "It's not used often and people forget" is a pretty asinine reason. Hell, on that line of thought lets remove NG/OG insertions and intubation for any medics doing less than 15 a year. I'm certain that people will spend the extra time keeping those skills fresh w/ con ed and practice, as opposed to remembering/relearning situations when (and when not) to administer a cup of mud.


Citing several studies done in late 70's & 80's, many of them suggest the timeframe to achieve the BEST results for parenteral toxicological emergencies using activated charcoal, is to give the drug (with or without lavage is debatable) within 30min to 2hrs of ingestion of the toxins. One study even suggested a positive effect within 4 hrs of ingestion.

Sure, many of our PO toxicological emergencies don't present themselves within that timeframe. However for those that do, or are on the cusp, does it not serve the pt to administer a treatment following a thorough assessment and a consultation w/ poison and/or med control?


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2014891/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10417490

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7109006
(this last link disputes the efficacy of charcoal following prolonged ingestion periods)
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the reasons. However, I think it's more of a speed and time issue in this case, since, at least with the PASG here, medics took so long trying to figure out how to get the pants on the patient that by the time they figured it out, they could've been in the ED. Also, this is probably their way of cutting spending since that appears to be a theme right now.

As far as the taste, I've never tasted charcoal, I'm only basing that it's gross from what my teacher said.
 
jtpaintball70 said:
CHarcoal for APAP OD? I've always been taught not to give it so the ED can give Mucamyst IV...
Click to expand...

I have never heard that. How would the PO charcoal affect the IV Acetylcysteine ?
 
CoffeeInThatNebula said:
I agree with you on the reasons. However, I think it's more of a speed and time issue in this case, since, at least with the PASG here, medics took so long trying to figure out how to get the pants on the patient that by the time they figured it out, they could've been in the ED. Also, this is probably their way of cutting spending since that appears to be a theme right now.

As far as the taste, I've never tasted charcoal, I'm only basing that it's gross from what my teacher said.
Click to expand...

Take it out and taste it... It wont hurt ya if you just taste a little, it's really not that bad...
 
so the ED can give Mucamyst IV
Click to expand...

Why would an oral drug impair an IV drug? ;) You mean that so they can give Mucomyst orally right? (I've never seen it given IV in the US; it's most often given orally).
 
usafmedic45 said:
Why would an oral drug impair an IV drug? ;) You mean that so they can give Mucomyst orally right? (I've never seen it given IV in the US; it's most often given orally).
Click to expand...

That might be where it came from, but while working as an ED tech and doing clinical shifts in an ED, I've seen it given IV many times. In fact my old hospital preferred to give it IV over PO. I'm reading up on why charcoal would affect it when given IV though. From what I AM finding out, PO and IV Mucamyst both work equally well for APAP OD.
 
jtpaintball70 said:
That might be where it came from, but while working as an ED tech and doing clinical shifts in an ED, I've seen it given IV many times. In fact my old hospital preferred to give it IV over PO. I'm reading up on why charcoal would affect it when given IV though. From what I AM finding out, PO and IV Mucamyst both work equally well for APAP OD.
Click to expand...


I've given mucomyst IV quite a few times. More times for liver protection, rather than for APAP overdose. For contrast MRI i think, cant have taken metformin in 24 or 48 hours and must receive IV mucomyst prior to the examination. (could have been for contrast ct tho, for some reason i always confuse CT and MRI in my head... especially since i'm not looking at the protocol...)
 
I've only ever heard of it being given IV. In fact, I specifically remember being told that IV access was a priority in APAP ODs because of the antidote.

Looking at the info it looks like it works PO, but it doesn't taste very good and tends to make people nauseous. Maybe the preference is dependent on how big the OD is?
 
Aidey said:
I've only ever heard of it being given IV. In fact, I specifically remember being told that IV access was a priority in APAP ODs because of the antidote.

Looking at the info it looks like it works PO, but it doesn't taste very good and tends to make people nauseous. Maybe the preference is dependent on how big the OD is?
Click to expand...

Mucomyst works as a prophylactic agent. I would postulate that IV administration is more efficacious than PO, especially considering that PO must go through digestion and the first pass effect. I've also heard that it has a very sulphur -like odor and taste. Give it with a straw if you give it orally.
 
Call me crazy, but it seems like giving IV would just be better in general. More consistent absorption, quicker onset, no chance of being affected by charcoal (for which there is plenty of evidence showing it is helpful in APAP ODs), and you aren't making your patient choke down another nasty thing after you made them drink the charcoal.


Speaking of, I think the problem with the charcoal is not just the taste, but also the volume and texture.
 
Aidey said:
Call me crazy, but it seems like giving IV would just be better in general. More consistent absorption, quicker onset, no chance of being affected by charcoal (for which there is plenty of evidence showing it is helpful in APAP ODs), and you aren't making your patient choke down another nasty thing after you made them drink the charcoal.


Speaking of, I think the problem with the charcoal is not just the taste, but also the volume and texture.
Click to expand...


I won't call you crazy, as usual, I agree with you :P
 
EMT-B's in my area aren't allowed to administer charcoal. I's and up can, but they also have more pharmacology training.

As for me, I don't think I've ever used it.

Cohn said:
Take it out and taste it... It wont hurt ya if you just taste a little, it's really not that bad...
Click to expand...

No thanks. Just looking at the stuff makes me gag. :P
 
In Mass we have to contact medcon to administer activated charcoal. I think that the distance that the PT has to be transported to the hospital depends on whether or not the PT gets the shake or not. At least where I am by the time we contact medcon and administer the activated charcoal the PT could be at the ED.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top